Why is this joking? I can only assume you're referring to Windows, which really doesn't meet those criteria.
| [reply] |
I depend on Windows at school, my luck is if I submit something saying it absolutely does not meet any of the criteria, Windows would throw the blue screen of death at me :), hahaha :).
| [reply] |
Heh. Good point.
Windows can be vindictive like that.
| [reply] |
| [reply]
[d/l] |
In my experience, Linux (for example) is at least a lot closer to meeting every one of those goals than Windows. Obviously, these criteria are somewhat subjective in real-world application, but if you use either Linux or Windows as a basis for comparison, the other falls short of (in the case of Windows compared to Linux) or admirably meets (in the case of Linux compared to Windows) those goals.
Granted, I don't know enough about the code in the Linux kernel to be able to comment particularly on its reusability and readability, but the fact that it's open source makes it reusable and readable, even if only with difficulty, while the closed source status of the Windows kernel makes it unreusable and unreadable — to say nothing of the fact that it's such a bloated, crufty collection of layered kludges that I have a hard time imagining pieces of its code being terribly reusable or readable, anyway.
| [reply] |
...a certain OS...
Unix? :)
Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon
| [reply] |